When People Say That God(s) Had Told Them To Do Something, Should They Go To Jail?
No, they are being religious.
Side Score: 13
|
 |
Yes. they are crazy.
Side Score: 26
|
|
|
|
|
God told me to; The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 NKJV) 1 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me. 2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments. 3 “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain. 4 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. 5 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you. 6 “You shall not murder. 7 “You shall not commit adultery. 8 “You shall not steal. 9 “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. 10 “You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.” If I follow the rules should I go to Jail? Side: No, they are being religious.
Well yes, a son is commanded to "Honor your father and your mother". And if he does not, both the Old and New Testament call for the son's death. However, if you as the father should kill your son for disrespect, that both Yahweh and Jesus told you to do so would not be an adequate defense in a court of law. Side: Yes. they are crazy.
1
point
1
point
Well, I guess that depends on what it is that they think God told them to do. If they think that God told them to commit a crime and they do so, then they should be treated exactly the same as anyone else who commits that particular crime. If that means going to jail, then they should go to jail. If, on the other hand, they think that God told them to smile pleasantly at everyone they meet then I, for one, would be against sending them to jail (although, depending on my mood, I may have the urge to slap them upside the head). Side: It depends
1
point
0
points
|
4
points
Case by case basis, which is why it's good trial is a part of the legal system. On one hand a god can command not to kill, which couldn't be argued as jail-worthy. On the other hand I could create a religion revolving around human sacrifice in which I kidnap people, which could be easily argued as jail-worthy. It's not possible to apply one rule regarding this topic across the board. I will assume, though, that you were referring to killing as a religious duty. Let me recount this story. A father and grandfather buried a girl alive in an arabic country because they felt she was spending too much time around boys. If people aren't held accountable for their potentially twisted views of their religion's commandments, this type of situation can arise, and perhaps even be pardoned if religion holds sway over legal process. Most recently, laws have maintained a fairly decent composure and religious principles would have to err on extremism to cross legal bounds. In those specific instances, I feel that religion blinds the individual from seeing logical course as can be argued in any extremist religious case. If it weren't for "thou shall not kill" christians would habe no excuse to murder euthanasia doctors. (I used the word murder because that's what it is.) If for example, euthanasia doctors would kill indescriminately to satisfy blood-lust, it would be more acceptable to take their lives, but since they are very educated, well rounded (usually), and very compassionate, it can't be argued that killing them does any justice. There are examples for each case of religious extrimism but long story short, if you take a life, you become what you are trying to prevent, and only sick people that would hide behind a religion to commit murder are capable of that kind of hypocrisy. Never forget that it was once legal to publicly rape, torture and murder "witches". Side: Yes. they are crazy.
1
point
Ever watch the show 'Dexter'? He kills criminals. Is he a murderer? I would say yes, anybody who kills is a murderer - even for self-defense, which I believe to be the only excuse for murder. Harold Shipman was a doctor - killed between 250 and 1000 patients. Had he been killed, would it have been murder? Side: Yes. they are crazy.
2
points
I'm not sure if I'm understanding the point you want to make. I agree with what you're saying, but the part about Harold Shipman could be arguing my point. If that's the case, all I will say is that murder is murder whether you can justify it or not. You could be worked up into a fervor and kill him, only to find out you killed the wrong guy, so were your actions justified? Murder is always murder. I don't believe murder is always to be frowned upon, but from a legal standpoint it is always murder. If I arrived home to find the women in my family raped and murdered, you bet there will be blood on my hands, quote that. It doesn't make it right, but it will happen. Side: Yes. they are crazy.
1
point
2
points
If someone tells you to do something and you do it, if it happens to be against the law, then you're guilty of breaking the law. If you break the law, you go to jail. If the person happens to be a voice in your head saying it's God, that changes nothing. Side: Yes. they are crazy.
1
point
Is God going to pay for the lawyer? I don't think so. Is God going to go to jail for telling somebody to commit a crime? I don't think so. Are the people who believe that God is telling them schizophrenic, or do they have some other mental illness - or are they just lying? I think so. Side: Yes. they are crazy.
I'd put the question this way: "When a person commits a crime and makes the argument in his or her defense that some god(s) told them to do it, should they go to jail?" If guilty, yes. However, the person's lawyer may present an insanity defense. It would then be neccessary for the lawyer to prove that the defendant committed the crime because of the mental disorder. "The insanity defense reflects the generally accepted notion that persons who cannot appreciate the consequences of their actions should not be punished for criminal acts." [1] In other words, their mental illness interfered with their ability to tell right from wrong. This defense is very risky for the defendant. If the jury does not accept the insanity defense, the person will be convicted (having already admitted their guilt), and will likely serve a longer sentence than will someone convicted of the same crime who has not pleaded insanity. When an insanity defense is successful, the defendant is compelled to undergo treatment. "Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are generally placed in a mental institution. Unlike defendants who are found guilty of a crime, they are not institutionalized for a fixed period, but rather held in the institution until they are determined not to be a threat. Authorities making this decision tend to be cautious and as a result, defendants can often be incarcerated for longer than they would have been in prison." [2] "On the average, a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to a mental institution is confined for twice as long as is a defendant who is found guilty and sent to prison." [3] I'm not sure how this is to the advantage of the guilty party. In any case, such a scenerio is rare. "According to an eight-state study the insanity defense is used in less than 1% of all court cases and is only successful in 26% of cases. Of those cases that were successful, 90% of defendants had been previously diagnosed with mental illness." [4] Nonetheless, this defense is controversial. Some U.S. states have banned the use of the insanity defense. I believe that one reason the insanity defense is controversial is a defendant who has clearly committed the crimes in question, and is "guilty", as the public understands it, is declared "not guilty". I beleive it is better to have a verdict of "Guilty but Mentally Ill" (GBMI). In 2000, at least 20 states had enacted "guilty but mentally ill" provisions. "A defendant who receives a GBMI verdict is sentenced in the same way as if he were found guilty. The court then determines whether and to what extent he requires treatment for mental illness. When, and if, the defendant is deemed "cured" of his mental illness, he is required to serve out the rest of his sentence, unlike an insanity-defense acquittee who would be released from psychiatric commitment once he is deemed to be no longer dangerous." [5] The GBMI verdict "provides for necessary treatment of mentally ill defendants, while still ensuring that those defendants are punished for their crimes." [6] I think that such a verdict, unlike "not guilty by reason of insanity", would be seen as both fair and reasonable. [1] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Guilty+but+mentally+ill [2] http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/9231 [3] http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Guilty+but+mentally+ill [4] http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/9231. [5] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ [6] ibid. Side: Yes. they are crazy.
1
point
I'm content to understand the question the way I rephrased it. If the person who authored the question were to challenge my understanding, I'd give it some thought. Otherwise, I see no reason to accept your statement of what the question is asking. Side: No, they are being religious.
Well if they break the law and the law is not based upon God's word, then they should face the consequences of their actions. Like if Abraham had slaughtered his son on the stone. He should've gone to jail for it. If the Law is created irregardless of God's position, then God's actions shouldn't have an affect on it. If the Law however is following God, then Abraham should not be on trial. Side: Yes. they are crazy.
|
